Ventured Guesses

It takes some combination of guts and foolishness to make predictions. The world moves so fast now that anyone who climbs out on the prognostication limb gets it sawed off right behind him.

You want proof? How about The Tampa Bay Rays, Sarah Palin, and Bear Stearns. Anybody see those 3 coming?

In an unpredictable world only fools make predictions.

However, some of us cowardly online pontificators like to venture a guess once in a while. And while it might be seeking credit a bit too early, a couple of my recent ventured guesses seem to be coming to fruition.

1. McCain Plays Security Card

Last week, I wondered why McCain hasn’t made terrorism more of an election issue – specifically, that he hasn’t claimed Republican credit for a total absence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

I wrote:

"McCain’s image as a maverick has taken a hit these past few months, but anyone who has followed his career knows he can go wildly off-script at any moment. His campaign has clearly decided not to make this (9/11 and security) an issue, at least not a big one – but maybe he’ll try in the coming weeks, as desperation sets in."

Well, he tried. McCain made a speech in Tampa this week in which he said:

“Barack Obama has displayed some impressive qualities. But the question is whether this is a man who has what it takes to protect America from Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other grave threats in the world. And he has given you no reason to answer in the affirmative.”

Obama immediately responded, repeating this line in a series of speeches:

"We will finally finish the fight and snuff out Al Qaeda and bin Laden, those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11."

So as I predicted (or at least, wondered aloud….), September 11 is now part of the campaign.

[By the way, notice how McCain says the full "Osama bin Laden" and Obama just says "bin Laden". Think that's by accident?]

2. How ‘Bout Them Patriots

When Tom Brady went down, I wrote a piece about how Brady's injury gives us a chance to test a few theses - the first being "Can Belichick win without Brady?" I suggested he could:

"With Belichick coaching, Moss receiving, and the rest of that well-run machine that is the New England Patriots, I’m betting they are playing football this January."

New England fans like the Sports Guy, all of whom think Brady is much better than he actually is, thought the season was over. Well, the Patriots are 5-2 and tied for first place in the AFC East.

Okay, I'm done congratulating myself now. You can go back to what you were doing.

That's Not Funny

Quick question: can Jon Stewart survive an Obama Presidency? Indeed, is political humor in general in peril?

For whatever reason, comedians have barely laid a glove on Barack Obama during this eternal campaign.

It’s tempting to blame it all on liberal bias – except that the Clinton Era was a bountiful feast for political humorists. It’s not race – Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Marion Barry have all been ripe targets for political satirists. It’s not newness – the evisceration of Sarah Palin is proof you don’t have to be around long to be ridiculed. And it’s not lack of material – the audacity to run for President moments after taking the Senate oath combined with the swooning adulation of his fans suggest there is comic gold in Obama’s messianic stature.

[Obama himself has mined the comic possibilities here. In his Al Smith Dinner speech, he said, "Americans have a big choice to make, and if anybody feels like they don't know me by now, let me try to give you some answers. Who is Barack Obama? Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jorel to save the Planet Earth...If I had to name my greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility...Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome."]

But something – perhaps a little bit each of the above factors – has left the person of Barack Obama a humor-free zone. This is no big deal for the Lenos and Lettermen of the world – they’ll always have Paris (and Brangelina and Britney and so on). But Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Keith Olbermann – their entire shows are built on the perceived follies of the Republican Party. When the Democrats run everything, what will these guys do? Supreme Court humor? Harry Reid material? Sarkozy schtick?

Sure, you can always count on some random Congressperson doing something he shouldn't do with someone he shouldn't know in some place he shouldn't be. But not every day. The Bush and Clinton Administrations have provided 16 years of consistent comic fodder - they were the gifts that kept giving.

I should point out that I’ve been wrong about Stewart before. I thought his show was in trouble when longtime producer Ben Karlin left, especially since he had lost so many of his best correspondents (Steve Carell, Steven Colbert, Rob Corddry, Ed Helms). But the show still delivers.

Besides, a few hours after Obama is sworn in*, the first Presidential hopefuls will arrive in Iowa and New Hampshire and the cycle will begin all over again…



* Yes, I’m aware he hasn’t actually won yet. But the premise of the piece is built on that assumption, so go with it…

The Dog That Didn't Bark

I appreciate that this election is based entirely on the premise that the United States of America has done absolutely nothing right these past 8 years.

George W. Bush gets most of the blame, but as Tom Cruise said in Top Gun, it’s a target-rich environment. Approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress are even lower than Bush’s (some trick, that). The Secretaries of State and Defense have been humbled. The CIA and the FBI are considered bastions of incompetence. FEMA took a beating. The Treasury Department and the Fed recently joined the list of major offenders. Respect for the news media is at an all-time low. Wall Street shat the bed, with the help of millions of Americans who bought houses they couldn’t afford.

As Casey Stengel said of the 1962 Mets, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

[I think this is why Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are the brightest stars of the political season. The only politicians the electorate can stomach are ones that haven’t done much of anything at all – they are blank slates for each side to imprint their hopes and dreams.]

But it got me wondering....why don't the Republicans ever talk about the one truly remarkable achievement of the past 8 years – the total absence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?

September 12, 2001
I work in Manhattan and was in town on September 11. From my office on 19th Street, you could for weeks after see the smoke billowing out of lower Manhattan. The newspapers were filled with reports of anthrax attacks via mail. It was a time of great confusion but there was one thing that nearly everyone in New York and perhaps the rest of the country could agree on: this would happen again.

Maybe not on the scale of 9/11, but surely September 11 was the dawning of a new age of terrorism on United States soil. Like Northern Ireland and Israel, terrorist attacks would become part of the fabric of our lives.

We would speculate what kind of attacks they would be. Not another hijacking – the passengers of Flight 93 made clear that the days of hijack victims waiting quietly for negotiations to set them free were over. The subways would be bombed, perhaps, or Yankee Stadium during the World Series. Maybe some smaller city, like Cincinnati or Memphis, to remind Americans we are all at risk.

But…nothing. At least not in the United States. Madrid was hit, and Bali. England twice. But things were quiet here.

When the 2004 election rolled around, Bush largely refrained from bragging on this, though he would occasionally hint at foiled plots. Democrats, meanwhile, made the words “Bush has made us less safe” part of their liturgy, on the theory that the war in Iraq served as the ultimate recruiting poster for Al Qaeda.

But still…nothing.

Surely this isn’t because Al Qaeda decided we’re not so bad, after all. And I don’t think it’s because they are pacing themselves – that may have been true for a few years but we’re now at 7 years and counting.

So maybe – I know this is crazy but go with me here for a moment – maybe it’s because we’re doing something right.

There are all sorts of theories as to why this is but most of them share a theme – that certain elements of American policy and the execution of that policy are actually working. Bush’s wars may have been disastrous for the U.S. but they weren’t so wonderful for Al Qaeda’s leadership either. And the FBI and CIA must be doing something right.

Which brings me back to my question: why has the Republican Party ignored this as an election issue – especially now that they are deep in the Grasping-at-Straws phase of the campaign?

Knock, Knock, Knock on Wood
Maybe they focus-tested it, and were left with the conclusion that Americans still regard the entire subject as the ultimate jinx. If McCain were to bring it up, he’d have to follow up with a knock-on-wood of epic proportions – we’d expect him to personally tap every tree in the Redwood Forest.

More likely, anything even remotely associated with the Bush Administration is toxic, to be avoided at all costs.

Still...McCain’s image as a maverick has taken a hit these past few months, but anyone who has followed his career knows he can go wildly off-script at any moment. His campaign has clearly decided not to make this an issue, at least not a big one – but maybe he’ll try in the coming weeks, as desperation sets in.

It won’t matter though – in the minds of most Americans, 9/11 was a lifetime ago. Debates over wiretapping and waterboarding are so 2006. The only calamity in lower Manhattan that concerns us now involve subprime mortgages and the Dow Jones index.

Of course, there is one thing that could change that. I'd just prefer not to say it out loud...